thirdfounder

this is a little o/t, but there is a book -- "On Killing" -- written by a US Army colonel about the psychology of killing in soldiery that cites some really amazing examples and data:

"The compunction against killing occurs in close combat situations, including aerial dogfights where pilots can see each other. It does not prevail with killing at a distance by artillery or bombing from airplanes. Machine gun teams also boost the firing rate because individuals cannot simply pretend to fire or intentionally mis-aim. In aerial combat one percent of pilots made over thirty percent of kills; the majority of fighter pilots never shot down a plane, perhaps never tried to."

"In the U.S. Civil War, well-trained soldiers fired over the enemy’s heads, or only pretended to fire. Of 27,000 muzzle-loading muskets recovered at Gettysburg, 90 percent were loaded, almost half with multiple loads! That could not be inadvertent. Further evidence was the low kill rate in face-to-face battles."

modern militaries devote a lot of thought and energy to overcoming man's humanity (and also to remediating the psychological damage of the aftermath of success). although they are more successful today than in times past, they aren't entirely, perhaps thankfully.

meeting people in a pub on a Saturday night is one thing. meeting people who are advertising for anonymous sex is quite another. one has to consider the problem of adverse selection that concentrates high-risk, low-responsibility sexual behavior in a place like the anonymous hookup ads of CL.

don't be afraid of everyone new you meet. just be awake to the circumstances that give rise to strong adverse selection.

wrong, i suspect. adverse selection in anonymous hookup ads is going to be much stronger than in a pub on Saturday night.

people go to a pub for all kinds of reasons, only one of which -- a lesser reason for most, i expect -- is the hope that they're going to hook up. this tends to lessen the concentration of those seeking specifically and only anonymous sex, and therefore those who seek sex because they cannot get it in full disclosure.

a forum where the entire purpose is anonymous sex, however, has primarily just that purpose -- and so it is going to concentrate people who can get sex no other way for good reasons.

hey, he didn't get rich by not taking jobs.

to what extent is this not about the surface issues themselves (the ACA, the debt ceiling), but instead about a play for control of the GOP itself by the elites that fund the Tea Party complex of think tanks/media/Congresspeople within it?

we're discussing Boehner's path ahead as though it were possible to placate the Tea Party caucus on the issues. what if that isn't so? what if they are instead bent on breaking Establishment control of the GOP -- something they seem to have made a lot of inroads toward already, given Boehner's extensive catering to their wants and needs?